So on my last post I introduced my system of sociological modeling, dubbed “sociological logic”. I said that all of “sociological” interaction comes down to two things at base-level, motivations and actions. And I introduced a system of operators and operations thereof, in order to better model the dynamic between motivations and actions on different levels.
In this post I’m gonna go more into depth about the AGREEMENT and FULFILLMENT FUNCTIONS that I talked about in the last post, and I’m also gonna add another function, the PERSONAL TERMS FUNCTION.
So here’s an intro to the ideas:
AGREEMENT [Α(sub)a | R } x—x } M } A(sub)t,l] ⇔ [A(sub)b | R } x—x } M } A(sub)t,l]*
* where A = a sociological entity of class A (individual level) • R = ASKING FOR operator• x—x = WHAT FOR function • t = an ABSTRACT FORM representing “time” • l = an ABSTRACT FORM representing “love” • ⇔ represents the “agreement” or implied contract between both entities
FULFILLMENT A | ♣R } x—x } M } A*
* where ♣ = the FULFILLMENT STANDING of any entity, or more specifically, in the agreement-execution-fulfillment cycle, fulfillment is the quantity and quality to which the execution was “fulfilled” or is “viewed to be” fulfilled
So it became immediately clear to me that these “agreements” and “fulfillments” could be used to model a variety of different dynamics and relationships and viewpoints therein, if I introduced one more, “gap-bridging” function.
Here’s an example of what I mean:
So let’s say that we have two entities, A(sub)a • A(sub)b. And these entities have a certain agreement between themselves, AGRx:
AGRx {[A(sub)a | R } x—x } M } A(sub)t,l] ⇔ [A(sub)b | R } x—x } M } A(sub)t,l]}
Now, we have a system of modeling each entity’s motivations but we don’t have a way to model an entity’s view of its motivation-agreement interplay or any way to weight or compare against one another different agreements. But now we do:
PERSONAL TERMS V {[A(sub)a | AGRx] CF(sub)m|s}*
*where V = the PERSON TERMS operator • CF = CERTAINTY OF FULFILLMENT • m | s = “middle and stable”, to elaborate, each CF can have 9 different combinations and there are 2 “classes”, with 3 in each, where class 1(progression) = s, stable • d, declining • g, growing • class 2(degree) = h, high • l, low • m, middle. And as a note, yes, these “classes” are quite “arbitrary” but that is the nature of subjective, motivation-based areas. These classes can be considered in a more “objective” light if we examine them within their entity’s motivation-agreement interplay and agreement-execution-fulfillment framework.
So now we have:
AGRx {[A(sub)a | R } x—x } M } A(sub)t,l] ⇔ [A(sub)b | R } x—x } M } A(sub)t,l]}
V {[A(sub)a | AGRx] CF(sub)h|s}
V {[A(sub)b | AGRx] CF(sub)m|d}*
*as an aside, from here on all WHAT FOR functions will be implied, with the “x—x” omitted
And to simplify, a plain English translation would be something along the lines of:
Two people, person A and person B, are in a relationship. This relationship can be viewed as an agreement between the two people. Person A wants “time” and “love” out of the agreement, and person B wants “time” and “love” too. However, the two are not on the same page when it comes to how they view their relationship. Person A feels very confident about the strength of the agreement that he has with his partner. Person B, however, feels less than confident, and in person B’s opinion, it is becoming less likely that the agreement will continue to be fulfilled.
So we’ve successfully modeled a very typical, “love dance”, all by using operations modeled around two simple base operators, based on the two, base-level components of sociological analysis, motivation and action. Now let’s get deeper…
So it’s clear that in “real life” that people don’t just have one agreement; they have many, each one with varying demands and intensities. Let’s go ahead and model a more complex agreement structure, using the same basic outline as above:
AGRx {[A(sub)a | R } M } A(sub)t,l] ⇔ [A(sub)b | R } M } A(sub)t,l]}
V {[A(sub)a | AGRx] CF(sub)h|s}
V {[A(sub)b | AGRx] CF(sub)m|d}
AGRy {[A(sub)a | R } M(sub)$ } A(sub)f,s]} ⇔ {[Δ(sub)a | R } M(sub)w,pc } A(sub)s]}
AGRz {[AGRx] ⇔ [AGRy]}
The above simply signifies that AGRz is a representation of a relation between agreements x and y, an agreement based on two agreements. And where AGRz is defined as:
AGRz [R } TS ω AGRy ⇒ AGRx ∼ γ]*
*where TS= the EXECUTION operator • ω = the IS SUCH THAT/IS connective, in the sense that the following statement is considered an EXECUTION RELATION • ∼ = the NOT operator • where ⇒ = the UPON connective, in that the following is the AGR being compared to, in a “secondary” sense • γ = the INTERFERENCE variable, such that various aspects of the agreement interplay lead to sizeable differences in CF variables
Now even deeper… Let’s assume for a second that A(sub)a is falling short on his end of AGRz; let’s assume that he’s spending too much time at work, engaging in AGRy, and the INTERFERENCE level begins to rise to such a level that A(sub)b gets worried. Let’s take a look at (sub)a’s views on AGRz in that case:
V[A(sub)a | AGRy } AGRx } c ⊃ ♣AGRz]
∴ V[A(sub)a | Wc AGRy > AGRx]*
*where c = a factor denoting the maintaining of a certain agreement or state of agreement dynamic, also denoting the “current” state • ♣ = FULFILLMENT of the agreement-execution-fulfillment cycle • ⊃ = IF THEN symbol from traditional formal logic • ∴ = “because”, as a personal reason, more so than a logical conclusion • W = PERSONAL WEIGHT, meaning the personal emphasis, in this case, emphasis on one agreement over another • > = “greater than”, in this case something like “possessing greater personal emphasis than”
And once more, to simplify, a plain English translation would look something like this:
Person A and person B not only have their “primary” agreement, where both of them request time and love, but they’ve got another agreement between each other. This agreement is a pledge that person A balance his agreement with his employer, company A. If person A begins spending too much time with company A, at the expense of person B or devoting other resources to company A, at the expense of person B, then this agreement will begin to crumble. Currently, person A, for unknown reasons, places a higher personal emphasis on his agreement with company A, than he does on his agreement with person B. His reasoning is that, at the current time, if he places a higher emphasis on his agreement with company B, this will actually help him to better fulfill his agreement with person B. He simply believes that, at this time, his agreement with his company is more important.
So that’s all I’ve got time for today. But next addition will be an intro to the legal viewpoint of “sociological logic” and maybe some more in depth analysis of some of the currently rather vague sounding terms and variables I’ve thrown in. Hope you guys (or the one person who actually read this lol) enjoyed!
Still much more to come,


4 thoughts on “Sociological Logic: Weighted Agreements and Legality

  1. Hi

    I haven’t had time to look at this, I’m sorry to say, but the approach seems exiting (maybe important/breakthrough).
    But perhaps the simpler term ‘sociologic’ is more catchy and practical? (Or maybe you’ve allready mentioned/considered it?).

    Regards Magne

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Hi again

    Well, the previous post was a miss. I didn’t know sociologic was allready an English word. Thought there were only sociological, but not sociologic. Googled it just now. Cant remember seeing the word before though.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s